HL Deb 10 October 1945 vol 137 cc243-66

4.13 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are proposing, in conjunction with the Allied Governments, to set up any body similar to the Supreme Economic Council established after the war of 1914 –1918, to co-ordinate and control the allocation and distribution of food, clothing and other necessaries of life in Europe and the Far East; and to move for Papers.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I observed recently outside a cinema in the West End of London a legend, modest in content and elegant in form, which asserted of the film being shown within that "It zooms with gaiety and hits a new altitude of heart-searing romance." I fear that I can make no such claim for the picture lying behind my Motion of to-day which is concerned only to attempt to produce some rent in the chill and sombre clouds of want and the fear of want, which hang over so much of the world to-day. The proposal makes no claim to originality or novelty. Indeed, I raised it myself in a debate in your Lordships' House last February on a Motion initiated by my noble friend Lord Samuel, upon the needs of occupied Europe. In that debate my suggestion did not receive even the tribute of an honourable mention from the noble Earl who then replied for the Government, but since then there have been two major alterations in the circumstances. The war has come to an end and a new Government is in power, and I make no apology for raising the subject for a second time.

Moreover, I recall with satisfaction that in that earlier debate the noble Viscount, the present Leader of the House, who I regret cannot to-day be in his place, which was then within easier ear-shot of these Benches, received my proposal with a subdued, but none the less sensible, approbation. Indeed, earlier in the debate he himself had spoken and said these words: There seems to me to be a serious lack of organization taking cognizance beforehand of the different requirements of the various countries, and of sufficient authority to see that provision is made to meet the urgent necessities. …It seems to me that what we need at the present time is a sufficiently authoritative central staff between the different nations for dealing with these matters. I confess that as a separate organization I cannot see the U.N.R.R.A. organization, however well intentioned it may be, functioning efficiently unless there is between the different Governments who are conducting the war effort, an agreement that there shall be a central Inter-Allied staff with sufficient authority, working either through U.N.R.R.A. or through the Govern- ment of the country concerned, which will be able to make provision beforehand in concert wish the Supply Departments. … As an on-looker it does not seem to me that the necessary organization has yet been created. That extract I pray in aid of my present Motion and indeed it goes a long way, if not all the way, to substantiate the case I am making to-day. I can only hope that the noble Viscount has not suffered a change of heart during his transit from the shady to the sunny side of the street.

I do not propose to make a case either for the necessity or the urgency of grappling with the chaotic conditions which prevail to-day. Fuel, foodstuffs, clothing fertilizers, raw materials and die transport to move them, are all required with an immediacy which can best be assessed by taking into account, in our own minds, and with winter on the threshold, the inevitable consequences of further protracted delay. In the war of 1914 –18 victory was only gained after the belated appointment of a Supreme Commander in whose hands were gathered the direction and co-ordination of all plans and operations in the military field, but that lesson was at lease learnt and when the victory had been gained a Supreme Economic Council was, appointed charged in its turn with the coordination of plans and operations in the economic field. After the last war the area affected was no doubt much smaller, but the wider the sphere of action and the more urgent the need surely the stronger the case for the appointment of a similar Council now. Yet, although the step of appointing a Supreme Commander in the field was taken at a much earlier stage in the late war, with inestimably advantageous results, the parallel example in the economic field has still been ignored.

When that original Council was appointed, its objects were stated in the official announcement on January 10, 1919, to be as follows: The Associated Governments have decided to establish a Supreme Council, consisting of two representatives of France, Italy, the United States and Great Britain, to deal with the questions of food, finance and shipping resources in relation to the revictualling and supply of liberated and enemy territory and to co-ordinate such supplies with supplies for allied and neutral countries. I call particular attention to that last clause —"to co-ordinate such supplies with supplies for allied and neutral countries" —for I suggest that, if, as I hope, a Council of this kind is appointed, its terms of reference should be wide enough to include this country within its scope. I confess that I am not myself an advocate of the movement, however high-minded and altruistic, which seeks to persuade the people of this country to impose upon themselves a further voluntary system of rationing. I believe that we have drawn our belts to the last hole of safety and that any further contraction would be followed by a deterioration, both physical and moral, which it would be difficult to arrest and impossible to repair. This country, after all, although it has not actually been liberated from the physical presence of an invader, did for six years live under the shadow of the threat of destruction from the air and of the no less menacing peril to an island people of danger hovering over, on and under the sea. In my view at least the time has now come when this country is entitled to ask for some preferential treatment from those countries which, being more remote, have been more fortunate in this respect.

The Prime Minister in the course of last month addressed the Trade Union Congress, and he referred to the problem in these words: The relief of Europe is in the first place a task for statesmanship in the calculated harnessing of labour and resources by realistic agreements and plans. One is tempted to ask without undue criticism where are those realistic agreements, where are those realistic plans, who is drafting the agreements, who is preparing the plans, where are the statesmen gathered together who are charged to consider, to accept and to implement such agreements and plans as may be decided upon? At the present moment there appears to be no overall direction, no collective forethought and no coordinated plan. On one day we read of this country sending milk to Germany. On the next day this country is clamoring for bacon from Canada. On the third day we are sending sugar to France. On the fourth clay Denmark is crying to heaven, or if not to heaven at least to U.N.R.R.A., to be relieved of 10,000 head of cattle which it has been asking for a whole month to be taken off its hands, and the Danish Government is complaining that all cold storage in Denmark is full of meat and suggesting to the Allied authorities that cold storage warehouses in Northern Germany should be filled with Danish meat until transport becomes available. That item of news must be a great solace to the anxious minds and empty stomachs of Europe.

At the present moment the whole proceedings, which are vital to the survival of mankind, are being conducted with the haphazard impulsiveness of small boys swapping stamps at a preparatory school. The trouble is not that there are no boards, councils, committees to deal with these matters. The trouble is that there are too many and that there is no firm centralized direction to weld them together. It may be said that the new structure, the United Nations Organization decided upon at San Francisco, provided for an Economic Council. As I understand it that Economic Council, which anyhow is not yet in being, is to concentrate on long-term planning. It is more concerned with the Utopia of tomorrow than the myopia of to-day. Then there is U.N.R.R.A., a vast inter-governmental organization; but U.N.R.R.A. does not begin to cover the whole field and, moreover, U.N.R.R.A. is itself the largest, most insistent and most thwarted competitor in the actual field of purchase of such supplies as are available.

If any of your Lordships think that U.N.R.R.A. takes the place of such a committee as I am suggesting, I would refer him to one who has been the most forcible and most persistent advocate of exactly the same scheme that I am putting forward, Sir Arthur Salter. Sir Arthur was not only intimately connected with the original Supreme Economic Council at the end of the last war but was himself the first Deputy Director of U.N.R.R.A. and was also, in the last Government, specially charged with the supervision of questions of relief. Sir Arthur Salter has dealt with this matter at some length in The Times and in the Observer during the last four months. One short extract perhaps summarizes the gist of the point which he has been making. He has written: The principal Allied Governments have at present no organization capable of framing a general reconstruction policy and of coordinating and directing their several contributions. The Combined Boards, the combined military system and U.N.R.R.A. exist. But there is no authority capable of using them as a single and adequate instrument for the new task of civilian reconstruction. That is a very powerful reinforcement to the general case that I am making, as well as a special reinforcement to the point that U.N.R.R.A. does not, and cannot, fill the bill.

Then there are the Combined Boards, whose seat is at Washington but whose composition I confess is unknown to me, and I think may be so to others of your Lordships. During the war the Combined Boards took their directions in the main from the Combined Chiefs of Staff, and that was obviously right as long as military necessity predominated. But these Boards have recently been given a further tenure of existence, and I wonder from whom they take their directions to-day. Surely a Supreme Council of the kind I am advocating is required to give those Boards guidance in these matters. Then there is the Economic Advisory Council which is, as its name implies, advisory only and, therefore, not appropriate for the purpose that I suggest. Moreover, it is, as I understand, composed of members of the consuming and not of the supplying countries. No doubt there are many more of a similar type.

If this Council is, as I hope, to be appointed in conjunction with the Allies, I would suggest, if I may, that its seat should be either in London or in Paris, where its ear may be sensitively attuned to the shifting situation in Europe where I believe the greatest need to reside. I would suggest also that the principle of the original Council of two members for each country should be retained, and that one might be permanent, so as to ensure continuity, while the other varies according to the subject immediately under discussion. They must be men of standing, of responsibility and of authority. I realize that the Foreign Office is very closely concerned in many implications of this plan. The Foreign Secretary himself, so aptly and prophetically described by Shakespeare as "This other Eden," no doubt has his hands too full himself to undertake the task, but I would respectfully suggest that the present Minister of State, who has long and wide experience of these problems, might perhaps be made available and clothed with authority to bring into line the far too many Departments here which are at present separately concerned with the solution of the problem.

The representatives of all the countries who should be represented on this Council —and that ought, I suggest, to include the great supplying countries like Canada and Brazil—must be able to talk to the military authorities on at least equal terms. I read a little while ago in an official publication of U.N.R.R.A. that it is the policy of U.N.R.R.A. to procure as many relief and rehabilitation supplies as possible from surplus military stores, and now that the war in Europe is over representatives of U.N.R.R.A. are going ahead with negotiations. So does the snail go ahead with perambulation. There must be some body of persons who, when situations like that arise, have enough strength and enough authority to say: "The war is now ended; now is the moment when these things, except the minimum required for military needs, pass into the hands of the civilian population."

Again the Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., talking to the gathering of his representatives of non-paying countries in August last, said: It has been agreed to allot first priority to the shipment of trucks, and to make every effort to ensure their arrival before winter conditions in some areas make adequate internal distribution impracticable. The urgency of this requirement is to be restated to the principal supplying countries, with a view to obtaining maximum allocations; and the earliest possible shipment of transport equipment. My Lords, what are we doing, or what are they doing, filling up precious shipping at that stage with trucks to be imported from the United States when the roads and fields of Europe, including this country, are blocked and jammed with unused military vehicles, 100,000 of which—not a big figure amongst them all —would go far towards solving the whole problem of European transport overnight?

This Council ought to be in a position to say to the military authorities: "The time has now come when you have got to look over your stocks again. You have got to tell us what you have, and we will agree with you what you can keep." That is the angle of approach, to say to the military authorities: "You have got to cut yourselves to the bone, even at the cost of a little risk. The time for over-insurance is past and whatever can be spared is wanted, not in dumps and depots and stores and vehicle reserve parks, but in the stoves and on the backs and in the stomachs and on the roads of the civilian population of Europe." After all, this war came to an abrupt and unexpected end, and one is entitled to ask what has happened to all the immense quantities of stores that must have been accumulated for the purpose of the invasion of Japan and the re-conquest of occupied China, of Singapore, Hong Kong, Java and the rest. I have no information about what stocks of food or other things are available. Successive Governments have treated the people of this country in that matter of giving them information rather as if they were spoilt and greedy children and it was the Government's business at all costs to deflect their thoughts from such revolting questions as food. But if there is a surplus, it is not going to the right quarter; and if there is a deficiency, that deficiency is not being equally borne. I submit that only a Council of this kind can obtain the required information and make the necessary adjustments in the actual supplies available.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not, in his reply, produce that somewhat threadbare excuse nowadays of the shortage of shipping. Shortage of passenger shipping in this country there may well be, but I do not believe that there is at this moment a shortage of cargo shipping in the world. Indeed I have been told, and on very good authority, that at the present moment in America oil tankers are being used for the carrying of wheat, not because there are no cargo ships available but because the tanker owners have said, "Unless you give us a fair share of the whole freight that is going, we shall have to lay up our ships."

It may be argued that this is no very propitious moment to start yet another body which depends for its usefulness upon international co-operation. But if we are to despair of international co-operation, we are to despair of the future of mankind. I venture to hope that a Council of this kind, concerned as it is with a task of profound humanitarian significance, may serve, in some measure, to soften recent asperities and restore earlier harmonies. "Give me liberty or give me death," is perhaps a trite, but still a lofty sentiment which has for six years past been enshrined in the hearts, and exemplified in the deeds, of numberless inhabitants of Allied and of German- and japanese-occupied countries. It would be a lamentable and shameful irony if, having first by our action given them liberty, we were now, by our inaction, to give them death. I beg to move for Papers.

4.42 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am sure that none of my noble friends on this side of the House can object in any way to the subject matter of the eloquent address of the noble Marquess, or the way in which he delivered it. If he will allow me to say so, I notice a slight thread of criticism of His Majesty's present Government running through his remarks. Again, we would not complain, I am sure, but I think he will not object if I also say that His Majesty's Government is only one of a number of Governments intimately and directly concerned in this problem.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Somebody has got to start.

LORD STRABOLGI

As the noble Marquess says, somebody has got to start. If the opposite number of the noble Marquess in the Supreme Council of the Soviets in Moscow could make a similar speech, if a prominent Senator could make a similar speech in the Congress of the United States, and if a French statesman could also use the same eloquence and sincerity in his Chamber, we might begin to get somewhere; but, as the noble Marquess says, somebody has got to start, and I congratulate him on finding so early an opportunity in the Session of raising this subject. But since he raised this matter last February, when he had my support as he does this afternoon, matters have improved, at any rate, a little. As he says, the last main excuse of the military authorities has been swept away by the sudden capitulation of the Japanese. The difficulty now is one really of machinery. U.N.R.R.A. has got some what into its stride. For example, the sufferings of the Greek people have been relieved to a very great extent and would be more relieved if there were not such a vile black market there, in Athens and other cities. The people of Yugoslavia have had help, including the provision of badly-needed lorries, which will make all the difference between starvation and survival of the people in the villages in the mountains of this sorely-tried country. This country has sent to the Continent remarkably large quantities of provisions From its scanty reserves We have done our duty.

Now, as I understand the noble Marquess, the complaint is that there is no supreme economic authority which will have the power of overriding the very powerful military authorities and bringing together all the producing countries in order to supply the needs which he described. There is no supreme, powerful, overriding authority with the prestige and the authority behind it to force a better arrangement of supplies and their quicker shipment to where they are so badly needed. That is the complaint. I must say I think it is a justifiable complaint, but, again, however much my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and his colleagues in the Cabinet may wish to bring this about, we are only one nation. We have to persuade the other nations concerned to play their part. The truth of the matter is that the war in Europe —I do not speak of the Far East —went on too long. It is not certain that the fabric of civilization on the Continent has not been mortally injured, and we shall not know that till this time next year. The coming winter will be a testing time. The policy of so-called unconditional surrender prolonged the war unnecessarily, and it was in the last year of unnecessary strife that the frightful damage was done to the transport and economic systems of Europe which now present such terrible difficulties. That is the situation which has to be dealt with.

I agree most respectfully with the noble Marquess that the provision to-day of food, fuel and shelter, with the greatest possible urgency, is much more important to Europe than the altering of frontiers or the shifting of populations about, or trying to claim strategic security for this State or that, and, as he says, some Supreme Economic Council with power and responsibility seems to be needed. But, again, I must repeat that all the blame does not rest on His Majesty's present advisers. We inherited this situation. We were a minority in the last Parliament. We have many great tasks to tackle and have not had very long so far in which to tackle them. I am confident that when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack comes to reply he will give a message of hope to the suffering millions in Europe and also a stimulus to those who will read his words.

How difficult this situation is, I will venture to indicate by a quotation from, the Washington correspondent of The Times of September 16 last. After quoting —what all your Lordships must have read, I am sure —the appalling reports the United States Government agencies on the plight of Europe in the coming winter and the certainty, as things are of the vast amount of death by starvation and plague, the correspondent goes on to say: The problem is not lack of fool available for export but the absence of funds to finance shipments abroad. As the noble Marquess has said, we were all set for the Pacific war going on for another six or nine months, and what would that have cost? But there are not funds to ship this surplus of food in the United States over here to Europe. In other words, lack of dollars in Europe means starvation for large numbers on quite innocent people, many of them our allies. Furthermore, the United States Government authorities are taking steps now to encourage the cutting down of production in meat, hogs and cereals for fear of over-production. The production machine of the United States has beer geared up to produce the greatest quantities of foodstuffs, and there is a fear tint there will be a surplus, that prices will fall, and that their farmers will suffer accordingly, and so the Government is reported to be encouraging the cutting down of production.

It is difficult to look at the situation without being appalled at the insanity of man. The noble Marquess referred to Are surplus of meat in Denmark, which is very remarkable. I have here sonic very recent newspaper cuttings about it, and I see that it still remains. On September 16 the Copenhagen correspondent of the Manchester Guardian reported that from 3,000 to 4,000 tons of surplus beef each week cannot be exported because of lack of shipping. The noble Marquess hoped that the excuse of lack of shipping would not be brought forward to-day, and, of course, he is quite right; there is a lack of troopers and passenger ships, but then is a surplus of cargo ships, though they are in the wrong place and are not being used. But this country has not a surplus of cargo ships; they are not flying the Red. Ensign but the flags of the United States and other nations. They are not British cargo ships. On the following day the Daily Mail correspondent in Copenhagen referred to 10,000,000 lb of surplus meat which could not be exported from Denmark owing to the shortage of refrigeration ships, and said that the slaughter of cattle had been stopped. "The next day the Daily Express referred to this matter. And so it goes on. On October 4 it was said that 20,000 head of cattle were returned to the farmers because they could not be slaughtered for food, due to the glut caused by the difficulty of getting shipping.

On September 14 —again quoting the Washington correspondent of The Times newspaper —I find a statement by Admiral Land, the Chairman of the Maritime Commission of the United States, asking the Commerce Sub-Committee of the Senate for quick Congressional action authorizing his Commission to sell Government-owned freighters. The Admiral said: "There is a world surplus of shipping, and the surplus is under the American flag. Every day we delay we lose some more of our market" —that is, the market for ships. Today I have seen the awful report in the Evening Standard from their New York correspondent, Mr. Cook, describing the terrible effects of the great strikes of dockers —they call them longshoremen —on the other side of the Atlantic, which have led to the piling up of immense quantities of foodstuffs for Europe, including this country, on the wharves, and to ships leaving empty for Europe.

We have our own troubles with our dockers here. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Reading has recently addressed the dockers on Tower Hill. He would find it a very exhilarating experience; I have enjoyed many meetings there myself. I wish he would talk to them now about the food situation in Europe and the fact that they are also holding up foodstuffs; and when he has done that he might go to the master stevedores on the other side of the dispute. In New York the strikers have tied up 500,000 tons of cargo, of which 100,000 tons are for European relief for U.N.R.R.A., not ordinary commercial transactions in foodstuffs. The article to which I refer goes on to describe the large number of ships sailing for Europe in ballast. This is an extraordinary situation. There are in certain parts of the world, as we know, surpluses of foodstuffs, and there is in other parts a surplus of shipping. How can they be married? It cannot be done, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Reading, from Whitehall alone, but only by agreement between the nations concerned. But I agree with the noble Marquess that the matter ought to be ventilated, and I await the reply of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor with confidence and pleasure.

The truth of the matter is, of course, that there is a lack of one thing which is more important than shipping or food: there is a lack of moral leadership everywhere. It seems to apply in all countries. It particularly concerns us, because we became a great Power in the world not because of our territory or because of our population, which are small, and not because of our wealth and resources, which are also small; we became a great Power in the world, and can be a great Power to-day, because we have stood for what is right, and have taken the moral leadership in great questions of this kind.

I do not know how much more the present Government can do, but I think that we should make a call to the whole world —the means of human communication to-day are very good —and urge that the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. It is appalling that there should be this prospect of a vast death-roll in Europe through starvation and cold when the surplus supplies and the surplus shipping exist to prevent it. I for one, despite the fact that I think that the noble Marquess has put a little too much weight on the responsibility of His Majesty's advisers, welcome and support what he has said.

4.57 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the noble Marquess having, with his customary lucidity and eloquence, put before you the explanatory facts of his very important Motion, I should merely like, in rising at this very late hour, to emphasize two points, one of which arises out of the other. Both at first glance may not appear to be altogether germane to the question before us, and may appear to be slightly off the Motion, but they are definitely intended to be in support of it, and I think on closer inspection will be seen to be really connected with it. The primary factor in all this is that the situation is an extremely serious one —on that we are all agreed —and that any measures to be taken are particularly urgent. I cannot help feeling that, this being so, and the situation being such as the noble Marquess has described in detail —a situation, in other words, of appalling confusion —it would seem not only natural but imperative that in taking steps, as I trust that His Majesty's Government will see their way to do, we shall begin at least by taking them to a certain extent on our own; because whatever degree of collaboration our American friends may be prepared to offer, it would take far too long, it seems to me, to co-ordinate them with our own, to whatever extent we may be dependent on them for the actual material we need for this purpose. I say that because the coming tragic winter is almost upon us.

So far as any Russian collaboration is concerned, it seems to me that at this juncture it would perhaps be more tactful to insist on the fact that the Russians have plenty to occupy them at home and in those territories which they apparently consider as their cordon sanitaire, rather than to insist on the latest examples of their traditional mistrustfulness and hypersensitivity, a state of affairs which I am afraid does not augur well for the immediate future. One thing, however, is certain, and that is that any solid efforts which we can make, even on our own, in the sense of the noble Marquess's Motion, can serve, apart from their pressing necessity, a further admirable purpose, and that is to consolidate in Western Europe in particular the good will that is already ours, a good will which in a continent menaced with tragic scission may be of incalculable value for the future. That this scission should not, for the benefit of humanity, be permanent, is agreed on by everyone. That it need not be seems to me indicated by a very curious statement reported in The Times this morning as having been recently made by Dr. Irving Langmuir, an American scientist, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to the effect that Russia was frankly incorporating into her Communist system of government the best features of the capitalist system, whilst the United States was tending to put into its democracy some of the worst features of Communism, which has now been discarded in Russia. If this is so, we are probably well on the way to systems of government resembling each other every- where, and that doubtless explains the remark not long ago of Mr. Hore-Belisha, that government is increasingly exercised by functional and not by political bodies.

In that case, apart from pure power politics, which are doubtless in for a long innings yet, ideologies will gradually tend to fade out as elements of discord, and one of the basic reasons for attempting to divide Europe in two zones will be removed; but at the moment it continues to exist, and it is because of that that I feel that in this matter of organizing relief in the areas that are open to us we have a golden opportunity of maintaining our prestige, and of carrying out what after all is our business —namely, that of having a prominent, if not predominant, say in the councils of Western Europe, with, I trust —and this, to my mind, is most important —the moral and practical support of the Empire, whose statesmen, as your Lordships will remember, have, on repeated occasions, declared their full realization of the part they are expected to play in these matters. And there is one country, my Lords, a great part of whose destiny is not only as yet undecided, but must depend increasingly on our decisions and whose potentialities are all-important to us in this task of reconstructing Europe —and that is Germany. Personally, I do not much care for the report; coming from that country to the effect that everyone who is working over there is so deeply impressed with the qualities of application and industriousness that the Germans are showing in restoring what the Prime Minister has described lately as being, in comparison I with what it was, "a great void," because I live in mortal terror of the penchant that I know my compatriots so easily develop in favour of Germany which leads them to forget the worst German qualities and which led us into all those errors which we committed in the thirties.

But if it is true that the Germans are working so very hard, then it does seem to me that, for the time being, that is something for which we should be thankful; for, perhaps, in the absence of a solid co-operation between the Allied Governments, there, at least, is an area where we car organize, anyhow in our own zone, something of immediate value, in the sense of what a leader in the Yorkshire Post suggested in a September article: Upon the rapid and efficient restoration of the bases of Germany's economy depends the welfare of the Continent as a whole For this reason the United Nations should co-operate at once in tackling the formidable problems of restoring production in the German mines, repairing the country's battered transport system, and ensuring that Germany makes the greatest contribution of which she is capable to the rescue of Europe from unparalleled want. As the chief coal exporting country of the Continent and as the source of trained industrial man-power, Germany has a part to play in helping forward the work of reconstruction which the Allies should not overlook. Her economy, severely damaged as it now is, should be utilized for this prodigious task. To neglect the value of Germany's productive potential to a war-ravaged Europe would be to imperil the chances of economic recovery throughout the Continent. Here, my Lords, it seems to me, is one of the ulterior aims that the Supreme Economic Council, as suggested by my noble friend, if and when it is eventually set up, could make its own, and that, in the meantime, we could make our own. And, in spite of what the noble Marquess has said, I cannot help feeling that whatever additional privations the British public is obliged to put up with, during the difficult period in the immediate future, in order to help to achieve such aims, should be accepted, if only because, as the Yorkshire Post concludes —and this is the main point of my argument— if Germany suffers from starvation, disease and spreading anarchy during the coming winter months she will not suffer alone.

5.6 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)

My Lords, there was certainly no need for the noble Marquess who moved this Motion to apologize for bringing the matter to your Lordships' attention again. It is a matter of supreme importance. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I may say that I do not view the present situation with any sort of complacency. On the contrary, I view it with very great deal of anxiety. I cannot accept some of the views which have been put forward here to-day to the effect that there are ample supplies of food and ample supplies of shipping, and that it is a mere question of marrying one to the other in order to solve the difficulty. Unfortunately that is not true, and I shall have to say something to your Lordships about it presently.

The Motion before the House contains two verbs. It indicates a wish to set up a body, on the lines of the Supreme Economic Council which was established in 1919, to "co-ordinate and control." Now these verbs may convey very different ideas. I wondered whether the noble Marquess had quite clear in his mind the difference between an advisory body and an executive body. We were told that this body to be set up is to be able to talk on at least equal terms to the military authorities; it is to tell them not to over-insure, to cut things to the bone and even to run risks. To what military authorities is this body to talk? To the military authorities of this country, it is quite right that the Government of this country should talk in those terms. But is it really suggested that a body calling itself the Supreme Economic Council, or by some such title, should be able to issue orders of that kind to all the military authorities of all the nations concerned?

It is rather natural that the noble Marquess should have in mind the work of the Supreme Economic Council. After all, it was set up in 1919 and his father whom most of us remember —and all of us who remember him loved him —was our representative. Mr. Hoover, who afterwards became President of the United States of America, was the American representative. It was, therefore, a very high-powered Committee, and if, in the course of the few remarks I make to your Lordships, I sketch the activities of that Committee and point out some of the difficulties which it encountered, I shall not, I hope, be thought by any of your Lordships to be belittling the work which it did. I shall say something about that. I must say something, too, about the existing machinery which has developed since the war period, the existing machinery which served us, believe me, very well in the planning operations in the war. I can assure your Lordships that there was singularly little of the haphazard methods by which schoolboys swap stamps about what it did in the war.

The problem we have to face to-day is not merely, and, perhaps, in some respects, not mainly, a problem of distribution. The necessaries of life, food, fuel, clothing, and shelter —little has been said of fuel, clothing and shelter but with the winter coming on these will provide very grave and terrible problems —eventually do not depend upon distribution at all. The problem of food depends upon this.

Surplus food cannot come from Europe. Surplus food must come from the New World and what is surplus must depend in part on the extent of current requirements. It may depend, for instance, upon the establishment of a rationing system. Is it conceivable that a Supreme Economic Council should order other countries to adopt rationing systems or tell other countries what surplus of food they have to send over to Europe? The problem is to find the surplus, provide for shipping and, when you have got it to Europe, provide for its reception at the ports and the inland transport, be it by road or rail or by means of trucks or lorries. What we have to try to do throughout the world, therefore, is to increase supplies, to render the largest possible amount of food available, and to secure equitable distribution.

The problem is complicated and complex. The machinery probably has to be complicated too, and it is easy when we contemplate this complex machinery to toy with the idea of someone in supreme authority to co-ordinate and control and to bring order out of chaos. But if you are going to provide Moses with the rod with which he can strike the rock, we must be quite sure that, when he does strike the rock, water gushes out. Otherwise Moses and the rod are not much good, and the experience of the Supreme Economic Council shows the extreme difficulties inherent in the situation. When that body was set up it was split into some six sections —food and relief, shipping, communications, finance, raw materials and blockade.

Those are the main six sections and each section had a series of committees, most of which has a series of subcommittees. Three of the sections were built up after the Supreme Economic Council had come into being; three of them existed before and were adapted. That body gave the appearance of having some executive authority at the centre but in reality its power was from the very early days circumscribed and rendered of very little effect by the concomitant disintegration of control. Then, as now, there was a cry that all controls should come off and in spite of the proposed executive powers that that body possessed it could not, in fact, control the policies of the member nations. It possessed no funds of its own. It had to try to co-ordinate funds voted by the various member nations, which was rendered difficult by the tact that these funds were generally allocated for special and specific purposes, so that after the Treaty of Versailles was signed the body was reorganized.

In its new form also it was not successful although, certainly, the Consultative Food Committee did some useful work in the co-ordination of food matters. There you had a body endowed, at least apparently, with executive powers. It could call spirits from the vasty deep but although it could call them by no means all the spirits came in answer to the call. We say quite frankly, having looked at this —we all learn by experience or at least I hope we do —that we do not think that this is an example to be followed. The problems are the same sort of problems, far greater and far more complex, but they are so different in degree that they almost become different in kind.

I think I might now tell your Lordships the essence of the existing machinery. It is based really on the Combined Boards and I am surprised that the noble Marquess said that he did not know who were the members of the Combined Food Board. When the Ministers cannot meet they have, of course, their officials to represent them, the very senior officials of their various Departments, and that body is responsible for determining what supplies are available, where and how they can be obtained, and recommending to whom they should be sent according to the respective needs. Some them are Anglo-American, some Anglo-American-Canadian, and they deal with food, raw materials, industrial goods and shipping. They are situated in Washington and they work closely together. The various members are responsible only to their individual Governments and they are purely advisory bodies. Yet I ant inclined to think that because of that very fact they have been highly successful, aid their advice has been very generally followed for it has been recognized that the advice which they give is in the public interest.

Recently these powers have been expanded so that other nations who are interested, whether as consumers or producers, can be represented on the appropriate commodity committees and they participate in the allocation themselves.

They work in close touch with U.N.R.R.A. which is one of the claimants for various commodities and goods. U.N.R.R.A. has to provide relief to countries which have suffered during the war. After a very slow start it is now in operation in Yugoslavia, Greece, Czechoslovakia and China, and is authorized to operate in Austria and on a larger scale in Italy. In addition to its other problems it has been given the immense problem of displaced persons. I forbear to tell your Lordships about the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe which is a body which provides a forum for discussion on matters of common interest.

What is the machinery we have to-day? It is this. The determination of the existence of supplies and their allocation to users is made by the Combined Boards, who advise their respective Governments. Shipping and transport were originally under the Combined Shipping Adjustments Board and now it is under the United Maritime Authority. You have got the supplies, you have got the shipping and when the goods arrive in Europe there is a Central Inland Transport Organization to determine port and clearance capacities and to increase the means of forwarding supplies either by means of rail or inland water transport or, of course, by road. So far as funds are concerned, U.N.R.R.A. is charged with the duty of providing them. I do not believe that the shortage of supplies is due to the lack of funds. I believe that the shortage of supplies is caused in part by devastation and the interference of war, in part by drought and in part by the disruption of communications.

I have told your Lordships that these bodies are advisory. They each of them advise their own respective Governments. It is for the Governments themselves to ensure that their own authorities collaborate. Take the case which the noble Marquess raised, the case of the Army releasing transport. If that is required it is for the Government here, for the Secretary of State for War, or if there is a difference between him and other Ministers for the Cabinet, to issue a directive to the Army to release the necessary wagons and trucks. I maintain that any other system is impossible. If the Army are to be told not to over-insure and to run risks, it is for the respective Governments to issue the necessary orders to their own Armies and I hope and I assure your Lordships that this Government will do it.

That is the system on which we act. I believe that although there have been setbacks, on the whole we are learning progress in the art of international co-operation. If we add to this machine another merely consultative body, then we shall add one more body to the very full number that already exists and I do not think that would be desirable. If, on the other hand, you are to envisage the setting up of a body like this with executive powers, with the power to direct this or that authority no matter from what nation it may come to take this or that action, then you will seriously endanger the collaboration which we have got to-day, and you may find that by attempting this coercive action you will get very much less than you have got by collaboration. That is the lesson that we draw from the experience of the Supreme Economic Council of 1919. If the nations are all prepared to play and if they all work together, then we shall do best by collaboration. If they are not so prepared, we shall not he able to do these things by executive action, by issuing directions. I say this after very careful consideration, because this is much too serious a matter to stand on one's prestige or one's set opinions.

I welcome this debate. I shall consider what has been said and convey it to my colleagues, and if we come to the conclusion that the suggestion made offers any hope we shall consider it again. The problem is a terribly serious problem, but we do not think this is a useful method. There is one further answer I want to make. How big is this body to be? My experience has always been that if you want a body to take executive action it should be a small one, because you cannot get quick or prompt action from a large general meeting. Are all the nations to be represented on this body, or is it contemplated that we should set up a small executive council which represents a few nations and that that council when set up should then be able to issue directives to all the nations, even those nations who are not members of that body? We are asked by this Motion to scrap our existing machinery, which has done pretty well in the difficult days of the past, and to substitute this body on the lines of the body which, despite the most powerful personnel, proved a comparative failure in the much easier conditions after the last war.

There is one further step I would like to take. I have dealt so far only with the short-term problems. There are also the long-term problems to be considered, and they fall more properly to be handled by the Economic and General Council of the United Nations Organization. We hope that body may be set up early in December, and we hope that in regard to these long-term problems it may be able to get to work at once. But I realize that between now and December there is a precious period of two months and therefore I am not suggesting that we can look to that body as the body which can solve the immediate problems. Viewing this matter as I do, having just come back from Europe, having seen there the conditions of some of the people, I realize how serious this problem is but I do not believe that we should be wise at the present time to jeopardize the collaboration which we have up to this point been able to secure, by the endeavour to set up some executive authority whose decrees might not be effective but who might seriously endanger that collaboration.

5.28 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the long and careful reply which he has given to this Motion, but it would be idle for me to pretend that I regard it as satisfactory. He has himself admitted the seriousness of the situation, causing him and his colleagues anxiety. He then sketched for us the existing machinery which is the machinery which has, I will not say produced this state of affairs, but has hitherto entirely failed to remedy it. Then he says that is the answer to the problem. That is, I respectfully say, no answer to the problem at all. It is allowing matters to continue exactly as they are going on at the present moment in a way which is causing grave anxiety to very many minds all over the world. There was, if I may say so, a sense of anxiety in the noble and learned Lord's mind about it, but equally a lack of any sense of urgency as displayed in the speech he delivered to your Lordships' House.

I did not put clown this Motion or make the speech I did as an attack, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seemed to think, upon the present Government. As I have said already, I put it down and tried to impel the late Government into some action. I put it down again in the hope of a more favourable reception from that Government's successor. Apparently, although everybody admits the seriousness of the situation, we are going on in the same ways as hitherto. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said I was blaming this Government, but that, of course, other Governments were equally responsible. That is the whole point of this Motion, that you must enlist general support and have the operation carried out on co-ordinated lines. Somebody has got to take the first step, and I hail hoped, and I still hope, that the time may come when it will be the Government of this country which will take the first step towards rectifying this most serious and dangerous situation. The Lord Chancellor said that a body like this cannot give orders to Armies. It may be that this body itself cannot give the actual order to the Commander of an Army, but it surely could say to the Government concerned: "We think that your Army has got too much and we look to you to give the necessary orders to have that stock reduced." The order would then come from the Government to the individual Allied Commander. The noble Lord on the Woolsack said that it is for the Government of the particular country to give the actual order. One is tempted to ask whether the Government of this country has given those actual orders to the military commanders that their requirements must be carried out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

The noble Lord on the Woolsack says that those orders have been given, and I hope that we may see some promising results in greater distribution.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I must he a little careful about that. I say we have given orders with regard to the provision of lorries. I do not say more than that. I do not say we have given orders to cat our requirements to the bone, or anything like that.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

The provision of lorries may mean two lorries or 200,000, but it is at least satisfactory to know that some orders have been given to the military authorities that they are to reduce existing stocks. As I have said, I cannot regard the answer as satisfactory. The fact that the original Supreme Economic Council may not have worked very well and may have had this or that difficulty, does not impress me at all. I would be quite prepared to start again and see if we could not make a better job of it. If the House had been fuller than it is I would have been tempted to challenge a Division, but in the present state of affairs I can only ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.